Elon Musk makes $41 billion offer to buy Twitter

[envirovore]

Google 'Section 230'.

I'm aware of what that is, thanks.

 

[Trapped Nowhere]

Musk will allow free speech on Twitter and that's a good thing imo.

That's not exactly correlated to usefulness. Secondly, do you actually mean that he'll just allow people to say whatever without consequences? I've seen no explicit mention of that, and it seems unlikely that he'll allow that and let it turn into Parler/Gab, meaning it'll get kicked off the store. It also uses some amazon services on top of that, meaning further issues.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

That simply protects a company from liability if there is something illegal posted on their server... that does NOT apply to freedom of speech in any way though...

It would bring fair play if revoked. I lost count of how many death threats I've see on Twitter from the left with no action taken.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It would bring fair play if revoked. I lost count of how many death threats I've see on Twitter from the left with no action taken.

Who said anything about revoking it? Now you're just making stuff up...

 

[Hexic]

It always amazes me that Americans use the word "Liberal" as if it were some sort of insult...

Do you know what "liberal" actually means?

Being willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

On second thought... now I begin to see why so many think it's a "bad word"...

"Liberal" in the context of this conversation and the reality of the current American political system - not in the dictionary sense.. which depending on the era is taken out of context. What the dictionary states in one of it's multiple literal definitions is irrelevant.

Additionally, from that same definition source you quoted - "Liberal" is defined as relating to a Liberal party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrat Party.

Anywho, aside from dictionary games - that's the reality of the American rationale right now. Trump was such an ***** and so polarizing, that there is a very large belief in the States that if you aren't Liberal (on the political left), it's irrationally assumed that you supported the orange.

Goes to show the average intelligence of society.

 

[Ohnooze]

I also like that people in America think Freedom of Speech applies to users/customers of a privately owned platform or business.

It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want wherever you want. If a business (such as Twitter) decides they don't want certain content on their platform, that's not violating your first amendment rights. That'd a business saying they don't want that in their business space, and they have every right to do so.
A dress code for work is pretty much the same policy and isn't a violation of your freedom of speech, as I'm fairly certain any business wouldn't want someone showing up with a shirt of Jim Jones with the word DRINk in huge letters and Cult Leader written across the top of it (which I find absolutely hilarious, so much so that I bought one).

It's just a business saying "take that sh*t elsewhere, we don't want it here", if you don't like it, make your own business that will support it. You have that right.

All it means is that the government isn't supposed to censor the press regarding criticism of the government and its policies and happenings within it.

How this still so difficult for people to understand by now is beyond me.

Edit: heck, even this site specifically has a rather strict policy regarding word filtering and what they'll allow as far as acceptable content in a post before being removed, and it doesn't take much to have one pulled and get slapped with a warning (having had it happen several times by now).

While I may have thought "wtf, why'd that get pulled when this other comment stayed?" at the time, I also realize that my rights haven't been violated and I just stopped outside the rules laid in place (which I agreed to by registering to post with the site, as everyone does on every site), rules which Techspot have every right to enforce as they see fit.

That's not censorship in the way that all these zealots claim it to be, that's just being a d*ck and violating the agreed upon rules, and having those rules enforced, whether I think they're silly rules or not.

I think this argument is a bit lopsided as it's always from the side who is benefiting the most from it. The same people saying "twitter (or whoever) is free to do what they want because it's their company" are the same people saying "I'll take you to court and shut you down if you don't make me a gay wedding cake".

The problem with social media is that they are so damn big now. They have a massive influence on what people see and believe and they very much lean in favor of the left. They do have the ability to sway public opinion and that's kind of scary imo. Again Youtube was banning conservative content creators for talking about Hunter Biden during the election but never had any problem at all with unproven Russian collusion for four years. It wouldn't be that big of a deal but social media is simply too big for that kind of bias now.

 

[Kandygrrl]

It always amazes me that Americans use the word "Liberal" as if it were some sort of insult...

Do you know what "liberal" actually means?

Being willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

On second thought... now I begin to see why so many think it's a "bad word"...

That may be the definition of "liberal", but how many that call themselves liberals are truly open to ideas and opinions other than their own? I'm libertarian, I can dislike both major parties equally.

 

[envirovore]

I think this argument is a bit lopsided as it's always from the side who is benefiting the most from it. The same people saying "twitter (or whoever) is free to do what they want because it's their company" are the same people saying "I'll take you to court and shut you down if you don't make me a gay wedding cake".

The problem with social media is that they are so damn big now. They have a massive influence on what people see and believe and they very much lean in favor of the left. They do have the ability to sway public opinion and that's kind of scary imo. Again Youtube was banning conservative content creators for talking about Hunter Biden during the election but never had any problem at all with unproven Russian collusion for four years. It wouldn't be that big of a deal but social media is simply too big for that kind of bias now.

I'm all for people saying whatever they heck they want, and letting others have their opinions on what was said and that individual as well based on those statements. If you're gonna say it, own it.

I've had several stores ask me to turn shirts inside out or leave based on either text on the shirt or just imagery (death metal merch gets pretty vulgar and grotesque at times). I don't really think about what shirt I have on before heading out, and some would be rather offensive to many religious groups or just those that prefer not to see vulgarity and/or gore in public.

I didn't throw a fit, I didn't threaten to sue. Simply went to the restroom and flipped my shirt around and went about my shopping.
Why? Because it's their store, and they felt it was unacceptable. If I didn't like it, I could just as easily gone to another one instead, and may have even had the same results there.

Saying "we don't want that garbage here, remove it or go somewhere else" isn't a first amendment violation, and both sides are just as guilty when it comes to acting like entitled
cry-babies about it.

 

[Ohnooze]

I'm all for people saying whatever they heck they want, and letting others have their opinions on what was said and that individual as well based on those statements. If you're gonna say it, own it.

I've had several stores ask me to turn shirts inside out or leave based on either text on the shirt or just imagery (death metal merch gets pretty vulgar and grotesque at times). I don't really think about what shirt I have on before heading out, and some would be rather offensive to many religious groups or just those that prefer not to see vulgarity in public.

I didn't throw a fit, I didn't threaten to sue. Simply went to the restroom and flipped my shirt around and went about my shopping.
Why? Because it's their store, and they felt it was unacceptable. If I didn't like it, I could just as easily gone to another one instead, and may have even had the same results there.

Saying "we don't want that garbage here, remove it or go somewhere else" isn't a first amendment violation, and both sides are just as guilty when it comes to acting like entitled
cry-babies about it.

You're comparing two completely different things though. Some people only get their worldly information from social media. Sorry but the store you're shopping at doesn't have a social impact on millions of people every day that social media does. It's not even remotely comparable.

 

[dangh]

I'm all for people saying whatever they heck they want, and letting others have their opinions on what was said and that individual as well based on those statements. If you're gonna say it, own it.

I would fully support it, but in return you have to register to social media with your national ID number (depends on the country), and use your full name in all of those post. The idea of anonimity in the internet results in bunch of people behaving without care and some people behave like animals when they think noone can come back to them.
Really, if someone have an opinion I'm happy to hear it, but lets all be on a level ground and back our words with our identity on the line.
This kind off works in Korea for social media and online games, so if that would be a country standard then it would be much easier to be actually constructive.

 

[Squid Surprise]

"Liberal" in the context of this conversation and the reality of the current American political system - not in the dictionary sense.. which depending on the era is taken out of context. What the dictionary states in one of it's multiple literal definitions is irrelevant.

Additionally, from that same definition source you quoted - "Liberal" is defined as relating to a Liberal party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrat Party.

Anywho, aside from dictionary games - that's the reality of the American rationale right now. Trump was such an ***** and so polarizing, that there is a very large belief in the States that if you aren't Liberal (on the political left), it's irrationally assumed that you supported the orange.

Goes to show the average intelligence of society.

But what do you actually mean by it? There is no "Liberal Party" in the US.... there IS one in Canada - but its policies are often far from Liberal... Of course, we have a party called "Progressive Conservative" which many would call an oxymoron...

Much like gender, politics ISN'T binary. Just because the US has a 2 party system shouldn't mean there are only 2 types of opinions.

I, for instance, favour "conservative" or right-wing financial policies most of the time... but when it comes to human rights, I lean farther to the "left" - so while I oppose welfare and high taxes, I feel that pregnant women should have the choice to get an abortion and that we should recognize those who are LGBTQ+...

I am fairly confident that there are plenty of others who don't fall into simple "left" or "right" as well... Alas, in the US, you need to make a choice since you only have 2 parties who have a chance to form a government...

While this had already been happening for years, Trump completely polarized US politics... if you were a "reasonable Republican", you had to make a choice: keep the sound financial policies and tolerate the racist BS.... or sacrifice your financial opinions to espouse the "moral highground" - and watch your nation go bankrupt.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Omg the Third-Right is going to loose their **** on this when he stabs them all in the back.

 

[Ohnooze]

But what do you actually mean by it? There is no "Liberal Party" in the US.... there IS one in Canada - but its policies are often far from Liberal... Of course, we have a party called "Progressive Conservative" which many would call an oxymoron...

Much like gender, politics ISN'T binary. Just because the US has a 2 party system shouldn't mean there are only 2 types of opinions.

I, for instance, favour "conservative" or right-wing financial policies most of the time... but when it comes to human rights, I lean farther to the "left" - so while I oppose welfare and high taxes, I feel that pregnant women should have the choice to get an abortion and that we should recognize those who are LGBTQ+...

I am fairly confident that there are plenty of others who don't fall into simple "left" or "right" as well... Alas, in the US, you need to make a choice since you only have 2 parties who have a chance to form a government...

While this had already been happening for years, Trump completely polarized US politics... if you were a "reasonable Republican", you had to make a choice: keep the sound financial policies and tolerate the racist BS.... or sacrifice your financial opinions to espouse the "moral highground" - and watch your nation go bankrupt.

Agree on Trump. He's so not good for the US imo and I hope he doesn't run again.

What do you mean by "we should recognize those who are LGBTQ+"?

 

[envirovore]

I would fully support it, but in return you have to register to social media with your national ID number (depends on the country), and use your full name in all of those post. The idea of anonimity in the internet results in bunch of people behaving without care and some people behave like animals when they think noone can come back to them.
Really, if someone have an opinion I'm happy to hear it, but lets all be on a level ground and back our words with our identity on the line.
This kind off works in Korea for social media and online games, so if that would be a country standard then it would be much easier to be actually constructive.

I wish I could give you more than one 'Like' for this.
After reading some of the outright racist stuff that gets posted on our local news site and is allowed to stay posted up, I'm wondering if those same people would share those thoughts if they weren't able to hide behind a made up screen name. No doubt some would, but it'd certainly make others think a little more critically.

See also The Greater Internet ****wad Theory (attempt to link didnt work)

 

[envirovore]

You're comparing two completely different things though. Some people only get their worldly information from social media. Sorry but the store you're shopping at doesn't have a social impact on millions of people every day that social media does. It's not even remotely comparable.

How is it not? It's absolutely comparable if you think people threatening to sue over a company not wanting to make a gay wedding cake is an appropriate comparison to a social media company/any internet based forum or message board of any kind not wanting specific context posted.

It's their business, they can enforce whatever rules about what they want to allow there as they see fit. Doesn't matter if it's a virtual or physical one, it's the same principle either way.

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with a business refusing to make a gay wedding cake, or asking someone to change their attire or leave, or "don't say these words or you'll have your post deleted and possibly get banned", but I accept that that is a possibility and what I may think about it doesn't change that that is their policy.
Sure, I (or anyone else) can make as much noise as they want about it (and we're all aware that the internet loves doing just that), but it also doesn't mean that business or platform needs to cave to said noise either. From there, make your own choice whether or not you'll continue to support that business.

 

[Ohnooze]

How is it not? It's absolutely comparable if you think people threatening to sue over a company not wanting to make a gay wedding cake is an appropriate comparison to a social media company not wanting specific context posted.

It's their business, they can enforce whatever rules about what they want to allow there as they see fit. Doesn't matter if it's a virtual or physical one, it's the same principle either way.

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with a business refusing to make a gay wedding cake, or asking someone to change their attire or leave, or "don't say these words or you'll have your post deleted and possibly get banned", but I accept that that is a possibility and what I may think about it doesn't change that that is their policy.
Sure, I (or anyone else) can make as much noise as they want about it (and we're all aware that the internet loves doing just that), but it also doesn't mean that business or platform needs to cave to said noise either. From there, make your own choice whether or not you'll continue to support that business.

It's not really a comparison between the baker and social media but just pointing out the hypocrisy. The baker has no influence on society yet the left stopped them from keeping their doors open (I think it was finally overturned but I'm not sure). Their rights as a privately owned company didn't matter. But when it comes to social media which benefits the same people they make the argument that it's a privately owned company. So again it only seems to matter to them when it's in their favor. I'm not for telling any company how to run their business really. I wouldn't expect a Muslim baker to make a cake with a cross on it for example..
That said social media is a whole different thing. It's massively influential in our society and only for that reason do I hold them to a different standard. When a platform is that large and has as big of an impact on society as it does it has to be expected to be unbiased. And truth be told the left would be rioting in the damn streets if social media was shutting them down like they do to the right.

 

[envirovore]

Eh, removed after deciding I've said what I have to say about all this and not seeing an option to just delete a post instead of just editing it.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

If Musk bought twitter to let Trump back onto it, since it's now known that Trump is a well established Russian asset, that would basically make them both domestic terrorists/Russian assets.

What a statement to make lol. Elon Musk buys Twitter, unbans a number of figures who were banned under previous ownership, and WHAM slap on the label domestic terrorist because one of those figures is Donald Trump. The only reason he would be a terrorist is because lefties get scared sh*tless by the changing tides.

Obviously everyone disagrees with Jan 6 happening. I'm sure some would think that most on the right wish a successful insurrection was completed, but I'd posit that the vast majority on the right would not be happy with an insurrection if successful. Many of the left believe that because they see Donald Trump as a fascist dictator (so using force to take power after a democratic election makes sense to them).

Regarding election fraud, I personally don't think whatever fraud may have happened was significant enough to change the outcome of the election, but I think it's worthwhile to ensure there is none. Even people on the left are concerned about voters' rights being defrauded (by voter suppression), so this is a concern for everyone as we are a democracy. The difference is the actions taken to ensure a fair election.

Besides these two topics, I have no idea how people on the left consider Donald Trump a terrorist. The only thing I can think of is misinformation propagated by the media regarding extremists (it's misinformation because the counter-evidence is undisputable if you look at it).

 

[Ohnooze]

Eh, removed after deciding I've said what I have to say about all this and not seeing an option to just delete a post instead of just editing it.

Well I can't say I agree with your post as it didn't stop them from going and getting a cake elsewhere. And again the bakery wasn't a large scale influencer. Like I said the only reason I hold social media to a different standard is because of their size and influence.

 

[envirovore]

Well I can't say I agree with your post as it didn't stop them from going and getting a cake elsewhere. And again the bakery wasn't a large scale influencer. Like I said the only reason I hold social media to a different standard is because of their size and influence.

It's a business either way, size doesn't matter, nor does it matter if it's physical or virtual. Businesses have policies and rules as to what they will and will not allow and are allowed to enforce them as they see fit, and doing so is not a violation of the First Amendment or freedom of speech. If you don't like that businesses policy or rules, you are welcome to use another business that aligns more to your liking, or start your own and cater to it yourself.
It's really just as simple as that.

Edit: I dont mean specifically you either, I'm using you in the generic large scale general public sense.

 

[EdmondRC]

The Wokeocracy will not like this.

 

[Ohnooze]

It's a business either way, size doesn't matter, nor does it matter if it's physical or virtual. Businesses have policies and rules as to what they will and will not allow and are allowed to enforce them as they see fit, and doing so is not a violation of the First Amendment or freedom of speech. If you don't like that businesses policy or rules, you are welcome to use another business that aligns more to your liking, or start your own and cater to it yourself.
It's really just as simple as that.

Edit: I dont mean specifically you either, I'm using you in the generic large scale general public sense.

My personal opinion is that they should be held to a different standard but that's just my opinion. We don't need to agree on that.

My main point was that the left uses that argument when it's convenient for them.
The whole "it's a private company" is now a problem because of Elon Musk. Two weeks ago it's that was the argument but already the left is melting down....so hey...."it's a private company, he can do whatever he wants".

 

[p51d007]

LOL, there isn't enough popcorn in the world, to sit down and watch the comments.

 

[MaitieS]

ROFL I didn't know that there were so many Elon simpers on this site.

 

[wiyosaya]

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with a business refusing to make a gay wedding cake, or asking someone to change their attire or leave, or "don't say these words or you'll have your post deleted and possibly get banned", but I accept that that is a possibility and what I may think about it doesn't change that that is their policy.

I am not sure that many know the SCOTUS reason behind ruling for that bakery. No, I am not an expert on SCOTUS, but some rulings, IMO, are easy enough for most people to understand.

SCOTUS ruling in favor of the bakery was very narrow, as I understand the decision, and, IMO, some lawyer really wanting to push it, might have seen their way back to state court, or creatively reworked the lawsuit for an outcome in favor of the plaintiffs.. SCOTUS ruled that the state court did not adequately consider the Bakery's religious viewpoint, and, basically discriminated against the bakery on religious grounds. In no way, again, as I understand it, did the SCOTUS ruling give any bakery/business/whatever, the right to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual preferences. It was, perhaps, touted by "conservative" media as a victory for "conservative" principles, however, as I see it, that gives the ruling more power than it actually has.

On the principle of free speech, however, SCOTUS is definitive in stating that in no way does First Amendment Rights, in the US, give anyone the right to incite violence because incitement to violence is not necessary for the free exchange of ideas - and that is what, according to the ruling, the First Amendment is all about - the free exchange of ideas.

And, as I see it, many do not understand what "Congress shall make no law" means as the opening to the First Amendment. It applies quite clearly to "Congress". In that sense, "Congress" making a law that some company like Twitter or Facebook, etc., has to allow people to say whatever they like whenever they like in any context that they like would be unconstitutional because "Congress" had made the law. The long and short of that is, if anyone says something in a forum that the forum's owners decide they do not like and they remove the post containing it, too bad. It's their forum. And if the post is spouting incitement to violence, my bet is that the owners of the forum could be held liable for a lack of censorship if the forum did/does not delete the post.

To get more or less back to the topic, I think even Musky has no clue what free speech means with respect to him trying to take over Twitter. I think he thinks he will be able to say whatever he likes without respect to existing laws or rules, but, IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.